The Punjab & Haryana High Court confirms that when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail and there is no distinguishing factor, parity may be a sufficient ground for granting bail to similarly placed accused—even in serious offences under the IPC. This reaffirms settled law and serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/51581/2025 of HARWINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011479762025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for future bail applications on parity grounds |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Bail jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted solely on the ground of parity with co-accused granted bail in serious non-bailable cases? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court reiterated that when a co-accused with a similar role in the crime is granted regular bail and there are no relevant distinguishing features, parity demands that similarly placed accused be extended the same benefit. If the prosecution does not dispute parity or advance distinguishing factors, bail should follow. Delay in trial and period of incarceration further strengthen the case for bail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Order dated 12.11.2024 in CRM-M-50366-2024 (granting bail to co-accused Jobanpreet Singh) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Parity principle in bail jurisprudence; absence of witness examination and prolonged custody as supporting factors |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, accused under Sections 379-B(2), 307, 34 IPC, was arrested after a complaint of armed assault and robbery. Bail was earlier denied by Sessions Court. Co-accused with similar allegations has been granted bail by High Court. No prosecution witnesses had been examined at the time of hearing; petitioner had been in custody since 08.03.2024. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail on parity when similarly placed accused already granted bail |
| Follows | Order dated 12.11.2024 in CRM-M-50366-2024 (bail to co-accused Jobanpreet Singh) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that bail may be granted solely on the principle of parity if co-accused has been granted similar relief with no distinguishing circumstances.
- Prosecution’s concession regarding parity and absence of distinguishing factors are material to the grant of bail.
- Long incarceration and absence of trial progress (e.g., no witnesses yet examined) can fortify bail claims, even in serious offences.
- Lawyers can cite this order as binding precedent in similar future bail applications in Punjab & Haryana.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s case was at par with co-accused Jobanpreet Singh, already granted bail in a prior, cited order.
- The State did not dispute the factum of parity or offer distinguishing factors.
- The Court took note that no prosecution witnesses had been examined and the petitioner had already spent a significant period in custody.
- The principle relied upon is: where there is parity with a co-accused, and the prosecution does not contest such parity, bail should not be denied arbitrarily.
- Bail was therefore allowed on parity, with the formal requirement of bail bonds, and a direction that custody post one week (if bonds not furnished) would not count.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Jobanpreet Singh, who was granted bail.
- Highlighted prolonged custody since 08.03.2024.
Respondent (State):
- Admitted the co-accused had been granted bail and acknowledged parity.
- Confirmed that no prosecution witnesses had been examined to date.
- Filed the petitioner’s custody certificate.
Factual Background
A complaint was filed regarding an armed attack and robbery during a family engagement function. FIR No. 22 dated 08.03.2024 under Sections 379-B(2), 307, 34 IPC was registered at PS Khilchian, Amritsar. Four accused were named; the petitioner was arrested the same day and was in custody continuously. Co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court. The current bail petition was filed after Sessions Court declined bail. At the time of hearing, no prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment concerns the principles for grant of bail in non-bailable offences under the CrPC, examined in the context of Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 379-B(2) (robbery), and Section 34 (common intention) IPC. The High Court applied the established parity rule for bail and referenced prior bail orders under similar sections.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this order.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court ordered that if bail/surety bonds are not furnished within one week, any further custody of the applicant will not be counted toward the present case after that time period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on parity in bail applications affirmed and applied.